The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1887-07-03
'7E717@'' - > = '''-''--71s'T Il
THE SWINGING HARNESS.
TIE CANOPY OF THE FIRE ENGINE
HORSES BROUG TT n EF0RE TIE LAW

| atty Demnndcd by a Patent Upon Tt
whore was the Harness First Useds
KANSAS CRY, juno 2s.-At the last meet
Ing OF the Council resolution was adopted
| requesting the Fire Committee. City Coun-
sellor. and Chiof Halo to consider the swinging
harness suit now bonding against the city, and
| report whether In their judgment 1t would
be better to 60 on with tho case or enter into
. compromise, and, by paying tho ROYALTY
demanded, bring tho costly proceedings to
an end. The history Of tho case is clear ly and
fully set forth in the following interview which
Journal reporter had yesterday with Cant.
Isaac Kidd, one OF the plaintiffs In the suit
against the city: ....,,, -. 4,
What is the history OF the present swin9ina
harness case against Kansas City ?" was asked
Mr.. Kidd In reply he said:
I'VE began suit about two years ago, but
previous to that time had demanded Of the city
q royalty OF s3O.6s for each set Of harness in
use, tho Same being the amount charged all
cities who have taken PIT l!ceenss ,ln E the
o'suIliyan act. THIS @as 'tthe set5Rt feaitttywe
brought suit against, Bufaio' being the first.
We brought suit against Pittsburgh and also
against Philadelphia, and were allowed
decree against all Of these cities: and they also
have paid the ,,$3o6s for, each, swinging
harness used by them in either the Fire, or
Police Department. We expected TO- Gat
hearing this last spring hcre, and had prepared
all our printing, and the defendants went into
court and had the case rcopened, and we may
now take tho rebuttal testimony. The case
has probably been reopened at the Suggestion
Of their Washington attorneys. They evidently
do not rely much on testimony hereto<
fore taken in Wow OF the Driveweu
case just decided by tho United States su-
preme Court. The defendants have not got Q
ghost of chance to injure the validity Of QUIZ
patent don't think there is any patent to-
day In existence that has the same legal opin-
ion in its favor, for tho reason that three Of the
ablest Judges in the United States CIRCUITS
Court have held our patents valid. They nare
Judge Cox, in our suit against the city Of Buff
falo; Judge Atchison, in our suit against tho
city Of lpittsburgh: Judge Butler. In our suits
against the city Of Philadelphia. The iatteE
aSm Sn ss Ss % bit
OF damages. We have made settlements with
about cities throqeh tho
oSnsn sas isof h sss
don't take, The same view 81 our case ssths
Judges in the East did, our COMPANY Will Ger.
sspst The IS swinging
q II San aHa ds
:" Previous to 1875 had the principles Of the
swinging harness been in use in aHg city ~,
I pas. 's Seeu H5s By horse
kas hi sas ey to s aaPptp hs
q and nd s Rnss se.an 81 5 e.
t took t6 Sf idSp home with him. and
ms sDv With suspended HARNESS and 10 sot
patent on a trip for suspendlng harness from
some OF the Kansas Glty, fremen visited 81;
and got the dSa how to sa M
| ment claim that Kansas CIT, Is infringing
aheiF has s soa n s @
90 to. departments in different cities, and ex..
Chief Sexton q =! Louis told me that hi his cit,
e cess hat at that time hr remnded GIe ssxton
s ssE,aS n spoks the che Fl Hae
and the latter told him II the courts would sus-
y ss.nst q hs city 81 S
Hale would refund the money hnd ior tiRosf
will say that the third claim Of our patents lies
in these words: "A combination of u harness
or device FOL. suspendins harness above the
apparatus substantially and for the purpose
| set forth regardless Of any mode OF constrnc-
is suspended by rope. chain, or wooden
frame; the object of our patentee was to re-
the hT5 10 Of tho and to hs
f5. result q our case SEA against the S city q
city city e Of Pkiiadslphia. "A' -'"A' N w -
who is condSciing the case Tor tho city, THAI
III Sn;sdsss d ssS Ss Il Ea
S Soth the tsr rittsbarsS and Phiiadephs cases
WHAT oHrEP HALE Bays. = 1so
who SIs H.s h
II Mr.. Edward O'Snlyan had been the hrst
f nyS ShrRs s snt had srona
grounds for action. But claim no was not.
Sow patent ait Of pFn
nven} Ea for S9' Which the Worswsk Manufae.
nf io SSmpaRS Sfa aP that ada sTs ats
for new and usein! mpro;ysm tn, IN r sEing-
S Ssn sssBpy Rsye r saa judge s in Eh Tie
district in which that city Is embraced simply
passed es n upon o tho case. The Buffalo suit was
decided inst as It ought e have been Ri IN view
Buo did mott contest the case set "a any ' extent,
but simply introduced few Witn@sssesJ and
%sE o tine GS1r ssa cs ESd do he Sm
that we have infrtngcd upon the construction
claim cannot DO patented. else we would have
had only one kind OF steam engine and only
one kind OF bridge spanning the rivers OF tho
When did you invent your swinging har-
I'm 1880, and II was notnntA two yesrsago
that the preseht suit WIS stitutcttn TtStifst
idea OF a swinging harness conceived by me
was in 1873. Frank Baker, who was then driY-
ing ono of the steamers, said to me one day:
George, wish you could contrive to hang a
harness up here lpointing above the englnelso
tho horses could run into s; t. r., ! thought the
done. l then drew, with piece Of chalk Din
gram Of the invention, but 3it not Dc ANYTHING
Was the first swinging harness used in San
Franciseo?"
No, f9r q. swinging harness was used In the
Louisville Fire Department In engine houses
Nos. 2. 8, and 5 in 1872 swinging harnesses
were also used In Alleghe9y City In 1877. while
suspended above n carriage more than Thirty
years ago., patent was granted to Ira Ellis
OF Tyler, Texas, on suspended harness with
open collar In 1860. In 1879 tho Hughes Brow